MANCHESTER - 9

[spacedog]

Have to agree with LAX....BA staff travel package is not all that any more.
Not much difference in regular fares. The added agro of not getting seats until flight close then rushing like a lunatic to try and get to the get on time. All in all a very unpleasant experience....

Secondly this topic should not be discussed on the Manchester forum but somewhere else.

[LAX_LHR]

Let me guess.

Skipness is still trying to pick a fight despite the fact he is on ignore.

WTF is up with that guy?

[MANFOD]

As well as OPO, easyjet now showing Pisa and Marseille from MAN for S15.

Both 2 x weekly Wed. and Sat and with MAN based a/c by the looks of it.
Porto is different days, but will the 3 routes require an extra based a/c I wonder.
The 2 Wed. flights depart before 08.00.

Edit: From a quick check, I could only find 6 other departures in the first wave on a Wed. which suggests they might have rejigged schedules
and can accommodate the new routes with the current 8 based a/c. However, I've not looked at later departures during the week to see if the 8 are fully utilised. Of course, if there are any more new routes?!

[TURIN]

BA staff travel is excellent......................................if you live within commuting distance of LHR or LGW.
If you're up north it's a PITA! Getting to LHR is ok but if you don't get on from there you're in to an expensive night stop straight away. LGW is even worse as there are no direct flights and getting a LHR flight and then the bus to LGW will not get you there for the morning flights so a nightstop is mandatory.

Anyway, back to the thread.

When are BIMAN coming back?
What's happened to Hainan?
Will Vuelling ever start a regular service.
When will AA introduce the 787 on the JFK/ORD-MAN route?

[viscount702]

Been looking at the EZY timetable.

There are no flights showing yet for RAK JTR & JMK. Have they been dropped.
All these flights were on Wednesday and Saturday so could be new routes replacing dropped ones.

Also SKG again the Wednesday flight only runs to 10 June.

That said it does look at present that 9 based may be required

[MANFOD]

Viscount 702, I checked the web site just now for dates in July'15 and the 3 Wed/Sat. routes you mention are still showing as bookable and the other is there for Mon/Fri.

[viscount702]

Viscount 702, I checked the web site just now for dates in July'15 and the 3 Wed/Sat. routes you mention are still showing as bookable and the other is there for Mon/Fri. Unfortunate timing by the looks of it.

When I was checking PSA and MRS were not loaded as to timings and the three destinations were showing no flights. They are as you say all now showing. I note the JTR only runs from 17 June and this replaces SKG on Wednesday which goes from 3 to 2 per week.

What is clear now is that most days 9 based frames are needed. That suggests bearing in mind the gaps that more flights could be coming.

[viscount702]

Further to my earlier post there seems to be room for 5 more flights. One per day except Thursday and Sunday.

[midfieldgeneral]

Staff informed 9th easyJet to be based from June 15th 2015. No type specified as yet.

[Bagso]

Surprised this hasn't had more discussion as "other" airports in the UK are apparently in the frame !

Catalan government confirms Emirates' interest in Barcelona hub - ch-aviation.com (http://www.ch-aviation.com/portal/news/31816-catalan-government-confirms-emirates-interest-in-barcelona-hub)

I'm still staggered that there is massive hype about HS2 etc see below

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/hs2-boss-says-rail-scheme-8065063

....when we have a potential asset such as Manchester Airport in situ already that fails to hit any markers in terms of national influence or indeed local if one considers the chamber members for Blackburn !

Will the Airports management EVER start translating its success in terms of new routes onto a national agenda ?

[Bagso]

Just checking. ...i thought the thread had succumbed to digitalis.

[Seljuk22]

New easyJet routes:
16JUN MAN-OPO 3 weekly
17JUN MAN-MRS 2 weekly
17JUN MAN-PSA 2 weekly

Maybe a new a/c will come mid-June?

[Ian Brooks]

already been confirmed 9th aircraft from mid June

[MANFlyer]

Manflyer,

I don't know who you are, or, why you have suddenly decided to attack me personally, but, kindly Foxtrot Oscar, as I'm not interested in anything you have to say.

Personally ?. I don't even know who you are, although could probably hazard a guess at age... But if you don't like being pulled up about posting misinformation on a public message board (which pretending you know the yield information and inner workings of an airline, never mind a a foreign one, on a yet to start route clearly is ) , then rather than get abusive, don't post it. It's that easy. :ok:

I believe the footballer Michael Owen is onbaord the A380. He has just tweeted that he wants to get off at Manchester as this is his ultimate destination.

It's all happening for him at MAN it seems. He came in on SQ328 from SIN a few months ago and unfortunately dropped on the day SQ go remote, thus leaving him packed on to a bus with the masses and everyone taking his picture and pestering for autographs.

[Betablockeruk]

One for you Bagso?

> News > Runways UK regional event next month - Place North West (http://www.placenorthwest.co.uk/news/archive/17160-runways-uk-regional-event-next-month.html)

The CEO of UKFast recently wrote "Modest Manchester must now come out of its shell". Seems the failure to sell oneself is not just applicable to Manchester Airport!

[LAX_LHR]

Thomson will add a 2 weekly Keflavik route from January 2016.

[sarah19981]

Brillant news lax-lhr!
Any further news on hainan guys? :O

[bermudatriangle]

I had the misfortune to travel through terminal 3 yesterday morning.
I encountered the usual chaotic queue to negotiate the seemingly enormous, yet painfully slow, security search area.

the experience was made even more unpleasant, by the constant shouting of an official, crying out departure times or destinations, in an attempt to herd late passengers to the front of the queue.

surely, a much more efficient and professional system could be instigated to help passengers get through security on time, as opposed to the awful bawling , metered out to people who have barely woken up !!

[Skipness One Echo]

Yawn,
MANflyer still at it? Just boring me now.

He has a point. You claim to work for BA and be based in Cheshire and you seem to have some access to GDS. However BA subcontract to Menzies at MAN and not once have we seen a post from you with exciting hot of the press news from.....BA. You do have a record or over excitiable "exclusives" which turn out to be not true, and your claim to know the yield on Cathay's new MAN route is prepostrous. Expect more challenges to your fantasies going forwards.

We still await news on Hainan. Also in a related note, the American consolidation continues at EDI with PHL dropped in favour of JFK. LAX_LHR's certainty and inside knowledge that MAN 2015 would see a four a day MAN-ORD/PHL/JFK/CLT were as expected, based on hopes rather than commercial reality. I would say that anything US can supply that ups the quality of the hard product on MAN-ORD can only be a good thing. Having a B763 sub 1990s product on the JFK is hardly competitive either.

[Bagso]

Can we cut the personal stuff before the thread gets locked !

Am I the only one who really could not give a stuff whether Lax gets Staff travel or not OR indeed surfs GDS all day.

Stick to the analytical stuff Skip, you are showing signs of paranoia !

[Bagso]

The "White" Elephant In The Room !

So it's not just Santa Claus that's coming to town !

Rejoice, put up the bunting The Davies Commission is on its way ....at bloody last !

Will they show Davies a rather large shiny airport, The Airport City proposal AND the considerable investment in a transport network that supposedly based on the airports own mantra could support 22m people

........or some pamphlets for what may emerge at STN in 30 years !

It's one thing keeping the dream of Aussie investors on side, quite another if you are so hamstrung by the weight of that expectation it causes you to miss a golden opportunity in your own back yard !

Since Davies started gathering evidence and indeed since STN was purchased a dilemma has emerged.

This synopsis is taken from another well respected forum !

-Saudi Airlines increases Jeddah to 4 weekly from 9th November.
-Pakistan Airlines increases Islamabad from 4 to 5 weekly from March*.
-Virgin Atlantic introduces daily Atlanta on A330-300 from March
-Delta introduces daily New York JFK on B757 from June.
-Thomas Cook introduces 3 weekly New York JFK on A330-300 from May*.
-Thomas Cook also introduces 2 weekly Miami on A330-200 from May.
-Air Canada increases season of Toronto.
-Thomson to increase Montego Bay from 2 to 4 weekly on B787 from May
-Jet2 to introduce Air Asia A330-300 on Manchester routes
-Cathay Pacific introduce 4 weekly Hong Kong from December on B77W.
-Turkish Airlines use much larger A330 on selected flights over the winter.

Boston and LA with Thomas Cook also appear nailed on !
IcelandAir Increasing

China beckons......

It's an impressive list

Here is the one for Stansted over the same timeframe !













.....oh dear !

Fabulous loco airport for London but sadly little interest in long haul.

Despite the performance of Manchester, to say the management are somewhat sheepish about proclaiming this success would be an understatement, why ?

Where is the tub thumping, setting the agenda, the strategy ?

Where are OUR presentations to Chambers of Commerce in the North Midlands, Humberside , South Yorkshire, and dare I say it Lancashire !
Where is our media representation to regional editors, radio. etc

I'm sure we are all heartily sick of the Heathrow Adverts proclaiming it "could" connect all points of the UK, with a new runway, very true it possibly could but MY GOD Manchester does that NOW but the silence is deafening .......Inverness, Aberdeen, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Belfast IOM, Norwich, Southampton, Exeter, Newquay, Channel Islands.

What on earth is the rationale behind this reticence ? PR to the MEN is cosy but its hardly setting the national agenda. Any other organisation would be hammering home these messages across there perceived demographic catchment area, .......yes still its 22m people and 90 minutes...... "lest of course we forget". IF they believe it themselves they need to start shouting not sqeaking !

And yes access for 22m people is a "national not a regional issue", it should be communicated as such in a professional coherent manner !

Oh if only Gil Thompson was here, can you imagine ripping into Davies and his Civil Service sidekick (remember him), and would the good members of the Lancashire Chamber of Commerce have got off so lightly in their support of Heathrow, I really doubt it.

Maybe MAG is embarrassed at all this expansion "up North" instead of "darn South" ? Lets be honest maybe its made things a bit awkward.

There should be a real opportunity with Davies to suggest that if LHR RW3 does not go through, its not all bad news, airlines by choice OR constraint are looking outside the M25 , BUT instead of the focus being on Manchester which is where the expansion is clearly happening I suspect there will of course be mandatory lip service to STN, we would not want to upset Crocodile Dundee and his mates would we..... therein lies the problem, dilution and distraction !

"whisper it ...don't say anything, we've got the expansion, its just at the wrong bloody airport...."

AND lo and behold why has Davies "suddenly" come North, has he been prodded by Osbourne maybe ?

With the sudden emergence of Devo Manc etc on the national agenda, and what has to be said some great publicity, maybe the airport will also get on-board, but somehow I doubt it.

The airport is bursting at the seems but investment in infrastructure is sadly in as much short supply as it's national profile.

"......Strewth Cobber, you want how much , sorry mate its not bloody Stansted ....."

Meanwhile contrast this with the City of Manchester which is boom town, another circa 30 storey scrapper announced yesterday, I think that's about 8 now, the largest housing investment in Europe taking place in East Manchester, Middle Eastern and Chinese investment pouring in.

hmmmmm.... a taste of what might have been had our backers been focused purely on "Our Airport" without the continuing distraction of others !

[insuindi]

unfortunately got to second @bermudatriangle's comments

fly rarely through MAN, and hadn't done so for a number of years, last week Tuesday arrival in MAN T1 was reasonable, needing to wait for stand however despite punctual arrival, and facing a 25mins border queue (queue stretching beyond the queuing system and e-gates out of order).

Then Thursday late evening departure, lights in T1 appeared dimmed (or is it always rather dark in there), and same experience at security, a long queue, which hardly moved. Took 20mins to get through. Followed by running a completely unneeded loop through duty free, trying to get to some sort of window. Departed from a gate in basement of Gates 1-15 building, reached via a staircase leading out onto the tarmac, and some sort of walled/covered walkway brings you into a very provisional looking, but clearly in use for some time, additional (and chilly) departure gate area.

Not sure what to make of these my impressions of MAN, but not blown off my feet.

[Curious Pax]

A read back through the last few hundred pages would probably answer the questions however:

Border control is the Home Office's area (whatever they are calling themselves these days) - length of queue is usually directly related to how many staff they choose to put out. I imagine the airport would be delighted if they upped the numbers, but especially in these times of austerity (unless we are talking Heathrow when the Olympics are on) can't see it happening.

Not a big fan if the shopping walk in T1 myself, but it's hardly a MAN exclusive - increasing numbers of airports do it. They need to find revenue from somewhere since the locos screwed them into the ground on passenger fees.

Sounds like you departed from the bussing gates - went from there myself a couple of months back. Not particularly salubrious I agree, but not much different to most airports who use bussing.

To misquote Basil Fawlty: "What were you expecting from a Manchester Airport terminal window? Sydney Opera House? The Hanging Gardens of Babylon? Herds of wildebeest surging majestically across the plain?"

[insuindi]

@curious pax

no questions, just observations ;)
Does the Home Office also require the waiting space to be too small for the crowds, and require the ceiling to be rather low, making the waiting experience truly welcoming (with the odd crisps bag and paper tissue lying around)? ;)

the basement thing was a single gate, and we walked to aircraft through a door opening onto the tarmac.

[MANFOD]

insuindi's comments help to highlight a problem for MAN. You've only to read some of the reviews on Skytrax to realise that not everyone is delighted with their experience of MAN. And while I accept that passengers with a complaint are more likely to post reviews than those with a decent , or at least acceptable, airport experience, the poor ratings - too many 0/10 - must be a cause for concern. It could also be argued that some folk can't be bothered to complain but will simply vote with their next flight ticket and use another airport.

That said, it would be wrong to write off MAN as not fit for purpose in my view. It may not be 5* but is probably ok for a good part of the time. However, it struggles at peak times of the day and at school holiday periods or late at night in arrivals when staff numbers are reduced. The structure within T1 and T3 is far from ideal, and likewise the lay-out of taxiways.

We hear there are plans afoot to build a new terminal to replace T1 and T3 which many would say was much needed and overdue. However, it would seem to me that MAG has a pretty big headache when it comes to planning for growth at MAN. There is the logistical nightmare of retaining existing operations let alone allowing for short term growth until new facilities are fully operational. Then build in the uncertainty regarding expansion of LHR and what it would mean for MAN. If a third runway is built in 8, 9, or 10 years time, would MAN still grow but at a slower rate than it would otherwise? Would a surge in connecting flights from other regional airports to LHR significantly affect MAN, and would some of our long haul services be replaced by more shuttles to LHR to fill up all those extra seats from the additional slots that would be available at London? And what would happen at MAN if the new runway was at LGW, or isn't built at all? Frankly, I haven't the faintest idea but I would suggest that this, together with the infrastructure issue, make planning for expected growth at MAN an extremely tricky exercise.

Is it just possible, and being devil's advocate here, that MAN may prefer to go for very modest or selective growth in the short term, even at the risk of perhaps losing some opportunities, until things become a little clearer? STN and LTN have been growing at over 10% recently. Could MAN really cope with that level of increase unless by some miracle it all happened at a time of the day when departures and arrivals were less busy? What short term, and not too expensive measures given the longer term investment required, could be taken to improve the present situation and handle extra activity in the terminals?

There are opportunities but certainly challenges for MAN and I'm sure we hope management will show sound judgement and come up with appropriate solutions.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

We need to be cautious about getting ahead of ourselves here. I will be watching the next few weeks very carefully with a view to determining MAN's prospects for 2015. As always, we need to assess future traffic trends objectively and with balance. Maintain that distinction between what we would like to see and what we actually expect to see.

Over the next three months, airlines can be expected to provide many more clues about the final shape of their Summer 2015 programmes. We know of some positive changes (as highlighted by Bagso), but there remains a need for big picture perspective. There are negatives in the mix too. Including one thumper.

Known positives at this point include: Cathay Pacific MAN-HKG; EasyJet ninth based frame; Virgin / Delta offering one net additional daily transatlantic; Thomas Cook increases on US and charter routes; some growth from Ryanair [around 10%?]. Jet2 is looking good for modest growth with the A333 replacing some B752 rotations and absorption of the former BLK programme. Indications suggest positive capacity tweaks from SVA, PIA, FIN, ICE, ROU. My understanding of the THY A330 rotations is that these are a short term adjustment relating to Hajj passengers returning home.

But we must set all this against this certain known negatives. Substantial consolidation by Monarch Airlines is the elephant in the room. The final version of their S15 programme is the one I'm most anxious to see. I note a suggestion that MAN is set to lose four based frames (I sincerely hope this is not so). Definitely leaving is the based A332 (capacity equivalent to 2 x A320). The larger B752 is also gone. Charters are gone. Long-haul is gone. What will the MAN fleet look like in S15? Eight or nine A320/A321? If the consolidation comes in at the more severe end of projections, the Monarch deficit could alone offset all the gains listed by Bagso. Of course, MON is switching some former charter routes to scheduled. The TCX and EXS short-haul enhancements are likely linked to MON's retrenchment also. Has TCX's Caribbean programme been scaled back as the US offering grows? I also await with interest TOM's final draft for S2015.

Elsewhere, the AWE service to CLT is not returning. Libyan is gone (but was absent for much of S14 as well). EgyptAir is gone … could it return? Aer Lingus Regional has withdrawn from MAN-SNN in response to the new daily RYR service.

FlyBe looks like a process of 'give and take'. AMS is added; a couple of domestic routes increase. But other services quietly fade away. I suspect that their S15 programme will be only marginally different from S14 in terms of overall seat capacity.

Press releases concerning S15 developments at MAN will make fascinating reading over the coming weeks. Will Hainan Airlines feature in there?

Early indications suggest that growth aspirations for S15 will be very challenging to meet. As EasyJet has already shown its hand, barring a major surprise announcement by Ryanair it is very difficult to presume 2015 a boom year. Whilst 22 million pax per annum is a very healthy base number to grow from, significant increases above this level will be a tough proposition to achieve in 2015. We can't presume party-time. Looking at the economy, there remain considerable challenges ahead although lower fuel prices will be a welcome positive for our beleaguered air carriers.

I take note of MANFOD's suggestion that MAN may be content to constrain near-term growth in passenger throughput. I presume the thinking here is perhaps to discourage rapid growth by RYR and EZY, the two entities driving the cited growth at STN and LTN? The problem I see for MAN in this respect is that RYR growth feeds the bottleneck T3 whilst the Monarch cutbacks in particular come out of under-utilised T2. For a short-term remedy, see our earlier discussion relating to T3 stands 56/57/58 which could service a further three Ryanair frames subject to suitable infrastructure upgrade. Inside T3, queues remain a pressing concern. Budget Ryanair pax will generally tolerate this … it comes with the territory. But perhaps the likes of KLM, AFR, AAL could be prevailed upon to switch terminals again at some stage? The extra capacity proposed by EZY / EXS / TCX at T1 do not appear to be of a scale to over-stress that terminal at this point. Queues will always be an issue at peak times regardless.

I would actually be very concerned if MAN were to discourage near-term growth by RYR as they are amongst the few reliable growth-streams out there at this time. There will be more Monarch, FlyNas and EgyptAir-shaped roadbumps down the line, so MAG must attract new business wherever it is on offer and focus their energies on managing the terminal distribution which results. Having said that, my impression is that projected growth levels from RYR and EZY will not represent a significant new headache for MAG in the 2015 timeframe at least.

Bottom line: the outlook for 2015 is mixed. Some good, some bad. Growth must be earned, not taken for granted. Competition for any prospective new business will be cutthroat (see BHX / Vueling). MAG will need to fight it's corner, not wait for airlines to roll up with new business. Complacency will be punished in this environment, although I suspect that there is little complacency about within the business itself.

That's it. Flame away! Feedback and discussion welcomed. I'll take all the stuff about me being a miserable git / total moron for granted, so try to focus responses on the outlook for MAN's airline customer base. :-)

[MKY661]

Substantial consolidation by Monarch Airlines is the elephant in the room. The final version of their S15 programme is the one I'm most anxious to see. I note a suggestion that MAN is set to lose four based frames (I sincerely hope this is not so). Definitely leaving is the based A332 (capacity equivalent to 2 x A320). The larger B752 is also gone. Charters are gone. Long-haul is gone. What will the MAN fleet look like in S15? Eight or nine A320/A321?

Well 8 aircraft are going (well 10 but 2 new ones on the way). EMA loses both aircraft and we lose Our 757 and A330, but so does LGW, So LGW has lost 3 already and we've lost two and EMA has lost both, so I think it'll only be 1 less A320/321 as if there are route cutbacks surely BHX or LTN will lose an aircraft.

[sarah19981]

Press releases concerning S15 developments at MAN will make fascinating reading over the coming weeks. Will Hainan Airlines feature in there?



What do you mean by this? Iv got a growing feeling that it will be soonly announced... (She-on-a-pole)

[MANFOD]

Plenty of coverage in the M.E.N today

Manchester Airport boss slams potential cost to taxpayer of making Heathrow or Gatwick bigger - Manchester Evening News (http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/incoming/manchester-airport-boss-slams-potential-8089986)

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

Some interesting stuff in that MEN write-up, MANFOD. Thanks for the link. When you stop to think about it … GBP 7.8 BILLION for one new runway at LGW (and a forecast that it will cost more!). The streets of London may not be paved with gold, but to cost that much the runways must be. One more LHR runway … GBP 17 BILLION and rising. These figures must include buying and demolishing Sussex and Middlesex respectively. How much did MAN's 23L/05R cost again? What an absolute bargain! At the end of the day, a runway is a relatively simple project from a construction point of view … those stellar sums must relate to land acquisition costs and lining the pockets of several hundred lawyers. With those price-tags, would either runway ever truly justify its cost? Because there are alternatives however sub-optimal they might be.

On a lighter note, does anyone know if Andrew Cowan is OK? That photographer could've warned him he was about to get squashed by a Dash 8.

sarah19981 … Don't take too much notice of SHE-on-a-Pole. I despatch her to work the clubs each night. I rely on her immoral earnings to keep me in champagne and lobsters. But she knows even less than me about planes!

[PPRuNe Pop]

If anybody is thinking of writing essays instead of something interesting - forget it. Some of the stuff is getting very long winded, and boring, and its time for some brevity.

[Bagso]

Manchester Airport boss slams potential cost to taxpayer of making Heathrow or Gatwick bigger - Manchester Evening News (http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/incoming/manchester-airport-boss-slams-potential-8089986)

yes you stole my thunder MANFOD....praise be !

AT LAST !

But please not just to the MEN !

Open letter to all Northern based MPs, George O !
All Newspapers
All Radio....5 Live etc...Still 20 minutes by car ! "On The Money"
Institute Of Directors
NEW Statesman
The Spectator
et al

BUT hey it's a start....

Definitely time to dig out my copy of The Halleluah Chorus !



The footer also references the "Heathrow Poster Campaign", as it's a family forum I can't repeat what I have seen spray painted over one located near the Birkenhead Tunnel BUT the utter fury which may be witnessed by some on here as misguided is there for all to see. (...and no it wasn't me Skip)
I have more pressing matters.

Apparently many have been defaced in across Yorkshire by the "Sons Of Boycott" as well, so the love for all things Heathrow is not exactly shared by the unwashed populus "Up North" who see it as more money being spent on the South !

There also appears to be a vitriolic twitter campaign.

In another MEN scoop Flybe were vocal about interlining thru Manchester, slight problem they also signed a codeshare to punt all there US passengers thru Dublin with Aer Lingus !

Una Due Tfc ...try this...last numeral was clipped


And for anybody wishing to vent comments to Mr Davies.....see you there (subject to work)

http://www.runwaysuk.com/regional/book



http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/flybe-start-new-daily-service-8078228

[Una Due Tfc]

Maybe it's because I'm trying to access that last link from outside the UK Bagso but It won't work for me, sounds interesting though

[MANFOD]

Well I appreciated your assessment of MAN's prospects for S2015 Shed with its balanced analysis of the positive and negative aspects of what we know or can deduce. And I enjoy Bagso's contributions. It's disappointing if short, personal and sometimes rather abusive posts are tolerated on here but detailed debate is not.

In terms of my devil's advocate comment that MAN may prefer modest growth, I was thinking more of the next few years as being short term rather than just next summer in the light of significant infrastructure changes that may be planned. That doesn't mean of course that there isn't room for one or two carriers to expand faster in the mix as some airlines are likely to be flat or show low growth while almost inevitably, some - like Monarch - will contract. You are right of course; airlines and airports are highly competitive and I'm sure the last thing MAN would want is for Easyjet or Ryanair to re-establish a stronger presence at say Liverpool because they felt expansion at MAN wasn't being encouraged.

Incidentally, the latest ACL report for MAN for the start of winter shows seats available as 3% higher than at the start of last winter and 4.9% more than at the end of last winter.

[Jamie2k9]

Not sure this will go down well with a few posters but.....

MAN management seem to spend more time blowing sh*t in the media and pushing the blame down south for just about anything to cover up in reality what are their failures and inability to attract certain long haul carriers. This nonsense if we keep LHR at capacity everybody will come to MAN is rubbish.

MAN who want to be a "hub" in the UK have major infrastructure and operational problems as an airport and management don't seem to be doing much about it except having the media on speed dial to avoid the real problem. This the very same airport who want to attract major carriers...

Passed through recently and not impressed at all, the experience I had would be expected at places such as BRS and EDI but not an airport like MAN.

BTW - Before a certain poster points out to what services have being accounted in the last few months, no need fully aware and some good ones in there!

LHR will get another runway in future, its very simple and putting it on the long finger will benefit nobody especially the UK collectively. I'm sure if STN was in the running for a new runway, MAG wouldn't give a toss about MAN and how it would affect it.

[BDLBOS]

1) LHR needs a third and fourth runway.
2) Good that MAN is best airport in UK, what about outside UK....not so good.
3) Forget the 4m pax travelling to LHR, they are BA's. What about the other tranfer pax to DUB, FRA, CDG etc, don't hear much moaning here.
4) Focus on MAN, make it a better P2P and transit airport.

MAN management needs to look at it's own infrastructure, as far as I can see there is zero planning for growth. MAN wants to play in the big leagues, so do something about it, give the airlines an airport they want to use.

[eggc]

MAN is only running at 60% capacity ! Biggest moan I see is passport control, but that is run by Border Force and I am sure MAN puts pressure on them to do a better job / have more staff, but its a bit beyond their control TBH.

I'm quite a seasoned and regular traveller, always starting and ending trips at MAN and quite frankly I rarely encounter any issues and enjoy the experience...maybe my standards are not high enough...or maybe its not as bad as folk make out !

[Ian Brooks]

BDLBOS

there is plenty of planning for expansion and it will be announced at the right time


Ian

[kieb92]

Flybe opening Bournemouth base and restarting double daily Manchester flights:

Flybe to open new bases despite half-year losses - www.travelweekly.co.uk (http://www.travelweekly.co.uk/Articles/2014/11/12/51105/flybe-to-open-new-bases-despite-half-year-losses.html)

Nothing yet with Hainan despite another announcement of European expansion:

Hainan Airlines Expands Europe Service from July 2015 | Airline Route (http://airlineroute.net/2014/11/12/hu-europe-s15/)

[MANFOD]

"This nonsense if we keep LHR at capacity everybody will come to MAN is rubbish"

Jamie2k9: I can't say there has been any serious suggestion this would happen. However, that doesn't mean that MAN might not benefit to some degree compared to an outcome where LHR did have a third runway. Surely, MAN (and MAG) have a responsibility to their employees, their shareholders and lenders to do and shout for what they believe to be in the best interests of the airport. They can't afford to take the so called moral high ground and claim they want what others (notably LHR management and some business organisations) may consider to be best for the UK as a whole. Even then, some would contend that expansion at LHR in a wider context is not in the best interests of the UK as a whole anyway, not least because it would be yet another expensive infrastructure project in the S.E.

I do tend to agree with you though that MAN has infrastructure and operational issues that need to be addressed.

Ian, I've no doubt MAN will announce their plans for growth "at the right time" but if, as rumoured, it involves major construction of a new Terminal, it will be how they cover the transition and growth in the meantime that will be of particular interest. Airlines and passengers tend to have limited patience but I'm sure MAN will work with all its partners to try and ensure the work is completed with as little disruption as possible to ongoing operations. But it will be no easy task.

[Ian Brooks]

I think T2 will be first

Ian

[MANFOD]

T2 expansion first could make sense Ian in that it would provide more wriggle room for when T1 is eventually demolished. Depending on the timescale, some limited expansion of T3 in the short term may even be necessary if the idea ultimately is to replace both 1 & 3 with a new terminal. There's Shed's stands 56, 57 and 58 for a start that could be upgraded.

[Betablockeruk]

Flybe opening Bournemouth base and restarting double daily Manchester flights

Oh oh, that's now 11 BE departures in 20 minutes (0840-0900). Challenging.


Dear Menzies/Flybe

Please don't continue to use the SOU flight as your 'spare'.

[All names taken]

In my humble opinion, one of the big challenges to MAN being taken seriously as an alternative to the London options is the way in which airlines p1$$ around with the schedules.
I put a serious amount of money Delta's way each year on a regular trip.
Today I tried to fly out on a Sunday toward the end of this month coming back on the following Wednesday - guess what? No flights.

I mean seriously no Westbound on a Sunday? That has to be THE day when business folk like me want to go somewhere - I've never done that flight on a Sunday when the C cabin is less than 100% full (other than the usual pilot sleep seat - 6A or whatever it is).
Are they trying to annoy their business class pax and make them go elsewhere? - if not they're doing a mighty fine job.

[Suzeman]

Health warning for Bagso. :ooh:

Another HAL attempt to push it's credentials in the regions.....



The role of the National Connectivity Task Force is to develop an in-depth understanding and associated evidence base of current and future requirements for enhanced transport connectivity to Heathrow Airport and the wider London and South East Region from each region, nation and Crown Dependency of the United Kingdom, with a view to making recommendations to Heathrow Airports Ltd (HAL) and its key stakeholders about:


the ‘regional access’ enhancements that should accompany its proposals to build a third runway – both before and after its completion;

the measures that are required to ensure that these are optimized to the benefit of the economies of regions concerned, the development of a ‘globally’ competitive hub operation, the airport’s commercial partners and users and its neighbours and wider stakeholders;

and the timetable for their implementation.


Membership not yet announced

National Connectivity Task Force (http://www.nationalconnectivitytaskforce.co.uk/index.html)

[Fairdealfrank]

There should be a real opportunity with Davies to suggest that if LHR RW3 does not go through, its not all bad news, airlines by choice OR constraint are looking outside the M25 ,
In truth if LHR third rwy is not built it will be a catastrophe. Airlines may well be "looking outside the M25" but don't forget that "outside the M25" include airports like AMS, CDG and FRA that can provide, like LHR, a great deal of connectivity and premium business.

Quote from the MEN:
"Mr Cornish wrote last month to Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin arguing for a model in which the country’s transport needs are served by Manchester and Heathrow - which already have two runways - along with Gatwick and MAG-owned Stansted, which wish to build second runways, combined with high-speed rail links.
He said he disagreed with the Heathrow operator’s argument that a third runway is necessary to allow British businesses to open new routes to fast-growing markets in the developing world."

Does the boss of Ringway really not understand the concept of hub airports? Does he really think that taxpayers would pony-up billions for high speed links between LHR, LGW and STN?

Sounds like a reheated "Heathwick" which has already been rejected. Maybe time to try and keep up?







Some interesting stuff in that MEN write-up, MANFOD. Thanks for the link. When you stop to think about it … GBP 7.8 BILLION for one new runway at LGW (and a forecast that it will cost more!). The streets of London may not be paved with gold, but to cost that much the runways must be. One more LHR runway … GBP 17 BILLION and rising. These figures must include buying and demolishing Sussex and Middlesex respectively.
It would have cost a hell of a lot less had it been done when it should have been, in the 1970s/1980s. BTW only a tiny bit of Middlesex would to be demolished: sacrificing a small bit of the county for the national good, and it is the national good.


How much did MAN's 23L/05R cost again? What an absolute bargain! At the end of the day, a runway is a relatively simple project from a construction point of view … those stellar sums must relate to land acquisition costs and lining the pockets of several hundred lawyers. With those price-tags, would either runway ever truly justify its cost? Because there are alternatives however sub-optimal they might be.
Yes, Ringway has already doubled its rwy capacity, why should Heathrow be denied the same opportunity? There are no alternatives, that is the point.




1) LHR needs a third and fourth runway.
Correct, and now, not years in the future.



2) Good that MAN is best airport in UK, what about outside UK....not so good.
3) Forget the 4m pax travelling to LHR, they are BA's. What about the other tranfer pax to DUB, FRA, CDG etc, don't hear much moaning here.
Yes, funny that! and no one moans about those transferring at AUH, DOH and DXB either.



4) Focus on MAN, make it a better P2P and transit airport.

MAN management needs to look at it's own infrastructure, as far as I can see there is zero planning for growth. MAN wants to play in the big leagues, so do something about it, give the airlines an airport they want to use. Indeed, there's huge potential at Ringway.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

I agree with several of your points, Fairdealfrank … LHR expansion is the preferred solution to London's capacity dilemma, and yes, the work should have been done thirty years ago. But a couple of other considerations now arise. Because the work at Heathrow was NOT done thirty years ago. LHR's early advantage has ALREADY been squandered as a result of political ineptitude. Heathrow WILL now be surpassed by continental rivals. Dithering and inertia at Westminster have already assured that. Number one status will not be easily reclaimed once lost. LHR's future is (at best) to play catch-up. Against continental rivals with fewer constraints to growth and superior infrastructure (third runway notwithstanding).

The cost quoted for adding a runway at LHR does appear wildly excessive. GBP 17 Billion minimum? "Probably GBP 4 Billion more". How is this preposterous sum calculated? Even GBP 5 Billion seems a heck of alot by my reckoning. Even though LHR expansion remains desirable from an operational point of view, growth should not come at a cost beyond its true value to the nation. Just think what GBP 17+4 Billion could do for Northern England's decrepit infrastructure. That would boost UK plc too. There must be a cut-off figure above which we acknowledge that the bill just isn't worth it. The alternative SE capacity proposals (yes, there are alternatives) bring some advantages of their own to UK plc, so if LHR development costs are so staggeringly high the operationally less-ideal solutions merit careful consideration from a value perspective.

You mention that LHR needs new runway capacity NOW. You are 100% correct. But that option is not on the table. Britain has endured 50 years of untalented, visionless political lightweights of all hues allowing our air transport infrastructure to fall way behind the nation's requirement. Even today, many MP's consider this a very good thing because (as you know) aeroplanes are killing the planet (if you don't accept this obvious truth you are an evil climate change denier!). This mindset will continue to dog the planning and inquiry process, further delaying any real solution going forward.

When do you (honestly) think a third LHR runway will open for business, even in a 'best case' scenario? My guess is 15-20 years. And LHR is full right now. So the question arises: what will be the status of LHR 20 years from now? My guess is well behind CDG, FRA, AMS and maybe two or three others in Europe alone. And the airlines using those airports will be established and entrenched, their infrastructure and support in place, their investments made years earlier. Perhaps several of these carriers will by then be content to use LHR as a spoke rather than their European hub of choice. We can't assume that the major carriers will up sticks en-masse to a LHR by then languishing at no.6 in Europe, still occupying a constrained site which cannot match the infrastructure of its main continental rivals.

We can presume that LHR has growth in its future. But we cannot presume that its status as Europe's hub of choice is a divine right. In twenty years time I strongly suspect it will lag far behind the competition.

And now a quick look at the twenty year window up until a third LHR runway could be expected to open. MAN has a key role to play during (and beyond) this timeframe. MAN's role is not to replace LHR, but to be the airport of choice for the cities comprising the newly-branded "Northern Powerhouse" and several of the shires beyond. This will be facilitated by MAN's existing second runway which, BTW, increases movement capacity by approximately 50%. 23L/05R is a staggered close parallel runway which means it cannot double MAN's throughput. But the extra 50% comes in quite handy!

Many of the passengers displaced from LHR will indeed use foreign hubs en route to their final destination. The problem is, several of these rival hubs represent a much better travel experience for the passenger than does LHR. Again, one cannot assume that all this footfall will magically switch allegiance back to LHR just because a new runway finally opens 50 years too late. Customers will choose the deal which suits them best. And there will be new choices in the mix: Berlin Brandenburg (they'll get it right eventually!); the new Istanbul. And established growing second-tier favourites: MUC, MAD, ZRH, CPH and the like. Plus hubs beyond Europe.

By the time LHR opens 'Runway 3', my hunch is that the airport will already be far adrift of Europe's top tier. It will grow, but it will never again catch up. Our politicians have already seen to that.

Meanwhile, MAN has a key role to play. Not as a LHR replacement, but as a big city-region destination in its own right.

[TURIN]

Definition of an essay?

Anyone?

[insuindi]

LH2505 MAN-MUC this morning diverted into STR due to smell in cockpit.
The interesting nuggest in the media reports are that the A321 carried just 82 Pax. Must have been a comfortable flight up to the smell issue.

[Ian Brooks]

It`s never quite as clear cut re pax figures as they are looked for the days rotaions and not just 1 flight as a particular aircraft maybe swapped for many reasons i:e heavy load on 1 flight, delayed on a previous
etc etc

Ian

[kieb92]

2 Antonov 124 due this weekend at MAN. 1st arrived this morning as VDA2512. Not sure on the timings of the second.

[Bagso]

MAN management seem to spend more time blowing sh*t in the media !

Dear oh dear oh dear tell me that you are joking !

Bloody hell , for the most part they are more subdued than a church mouse, infact please quote some references.

As far as I am aware despite being one of the largest organisations in the UK its only the second time the CEO has come out fighting his corner and whether you agree with him or not is immaterial.

Even then instead of using a national agency to get his message into "THE NATIONAL MEDIA" it's ended up in the good old MEN. A newspaper whose news and coverage barely extends beyond the M60 ......!

Hate to say it but the airport are almost totally "ManchesterCetric" appreciate it is more marketing than communications BUT few billboards in Yorkshire and the Midlands is not exactly going to get your message heard at a national level !


With regard to postings I would much rather read Sheds posting than some of the other contributions, a substantial number of which make no meaningful contribution to debate.

[Bagso]

Interesting report by IPPR

Northern towns and cities account for one-fifth of UK's economy - Manchester Evening News (http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/business-news/northern-towns-cities-account-one-fifth-8099836)

and "a fix" sort of re T3

http://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/greater-manchester-news/live-manchester-breaking-news--8101037


AND the best one, clearly irked by recent comments by the Chamber Of Commerce for Lancashire, finally a response , better late than never !

http://www.lep.co.uk/news/traffic-travel/traffic-travel/airport-debate-soars-1-6946901

[Fairdealfrank]

LHR … The Battle is Already Lost. MAN Must Bat for Itself.

I agree with several of your points, Fairdealfrank … LHR expansion is the preferred solution to London's capacity dilemma, and yes, the work should have been done thirty years ago. But a couple of other considerations now arise. Because the work at Heathrow was NOT done thirty years ago. LHR's early advantage has ALREADY been squandered as a result of political ineptitude. Heathrow WILL now be surpassed by continental rivals. Dithering and inertia at Westminster have already assured that. Number one status will not be easily reclaimed once lost. LHR's future is (at best) to play catch-up. Against continental rivals with fewer constraints to growth and superior infrastructure (third runway notwithstanding).
Since reading these comments, have been racking my brain: are there any other countries that have thrown away such a huge competitive advantage?



The cost quoted for adding a runway at LHR does appear wildly excessive. GBP 17 Billion minimum? "Probably GBP 4 Billion more". How is this preposterous sum calculated? Even GBP 5 Billion seems a heck of alot by my reckoning. Even though LHR expansion remains desirable from an operational point of view, growth should not come at a cost beyond its true value to the nation.
Just like it’s possible to manipulate statistics to suit a particular point of view, creative accounting can be used to the same ends. Who really knows how much the rwy will cost? It can be spun in many ways. Are the Davis Commision costs included? the work preceding the White Paper of 2003? The RUTCATSE study of 1995? Just look at the ever-increasing estimates for HS2, no one really knows.


Just think what GBP 17+4 Billion could do for Northern England's decrepit infrastructure. That would boost UK plc too. There must be a cut-off figure above which we acknowledge that the bill just isn't worth it. The alternative SE capacity proposals (yes, there are alternatives) bring some advantages of their own to UK plc, so if LHR development costs are so staggeringly high the operationally less-ideal solutions merit careful consideration from a value perspective.
£21 bn. could do a lot for northern infrastructure. The problem is, from that point of view, is that this particular £21 bn. (if it is an accurate figure) is private sector money paying for a particular infrastructure project for which there is a very good business case.

As for the other south east alternatives, they don’t address the very specific problem: no spare capacity at the UK’s hub airport.


You mention that LHR needs new runway capacity NOW. You are 100% correct. But that option is not on the table. Britain has endured 50 years of untalented, visionless political lightweights of all hues allowing our air transport infrastructure to fall way behind the nation's requirement.Can’t argue with your comments about the lightweights that run the country.


Even today, many MP's consider this a very good thing because (as you know) aeroplanes are killing the planet (if you don't accept this obvious truth you are an evil climate change denier!). This mindset will continue to dog the planning and inquiry process, further delaying any real solution going forward.
As for the pollution argument, that falls down because more fuel is wasted, and pollution generated, by aircraft queuing up for 20 minutes to take off and for 20 minutes plus while in a stack before landing. It all adds to fares.

There’s also one other mindset that holds things up: the vocal minority of anti-aviation (till they want to fly off somewhere) well-off NIMBYs who live miles away from the airport being taken more seriously than the needs of the UK as a whole.

The sorry saga appears to be about to repeat itself over the issue of fracking, but that's another story.


When do you (honestly) think a third LHR runway will open for business, even in a 'best case' scenario? My guess is 15-20 years. And LHR is full right now.
You optimist!

My guess is probably not in most of our lifetimes.


So the question arises: what will be the status of LHR 20 years from now? My guess is well behind CDG, FRA, AMS and maybe two or three others in Europe alone. And the airlines using those airports will be established and entrenched, their infrastructure and support in place, their investments made years earlier. Perhaps several of these carriers will by then be content to use LHR as a spoke rather than their European hub of choice. We can't assume that the major carriers will up sticks en-masse to a LHR by then languishing at no.6 in Europe, still occupying a constrained site which cannot match the infrastructure of its main continental rivals.

We can presume that LHR has growth in its future. But we cannot presume that its status as Europe's hub of choice is a divine right. In twenty years time I strongly suspect it will lag far behind the competition.
Maybe, maybe not. Who knows what will happen in 20 years? We can’t assume that LHR will have sunk to sixth place any more than we can assume it will be in first.

One has to follow the money, if Heathrow’s long term future is so dire, it’s unlikely that billions of private money would be going into infrastructure improvements on the airport. Two new terminals are the current examples.

We know two things:

(1) That we need to grow our economy and trade with the entire world. Forget about the sclerotic eurozone (which contains AMS, CDG, FRA) it’s dying from deflation and high unemployment and will probably implode in the medium term). To that end we need connectivity both to/from the big world out there, and that needs to be linked to all parts of the UK by feeder routes.

(2) In 20 years time aircraft will be even cleaner and quieter than today.


And now a quick look at the twenty year window up until a third LHR runway could be expected to open. MAN has a key role to play during (and beyond) this timeframe. MAN's role is not to replace LHR, but to be the airport of choice for the cities comprising the newly-branded "Northern Powerhouse" and several of the shires beyond. This will be facilitated by MAN's existing second runway which, BTW, increases movement capacity by approximately 50%. 23L/05R is a staggered close parallel runway which means it cannot double MAN's throughput. But the extra 50% comes in quite handy!
Have always stated that Ringway is an important part of the UK’s aviation infrastructure and that it has great potential, but it is not a case of "either/or".

Ringway’s growth will follow on when the great northern powerhouse becomes a reality, when it becomes like the Rhine-Ruhr area of Germany. It looks as if it could be on the way, so bring it on.


Many of the passengers displaced from LHR will indeed use foreign hubs en route to their final destination. The problem is, several of these rival hubs represent a much better travel experience for the passenger than does LHR.
Not necessarily the case any more. CDG is dire and wins several “worst airport” awards while LHR is getting into the top 10 best airports these days.


Again, one cannot assume that all this footfall will magically switch allegiance back to LHR just because a new runway finally opens 50 years too late. Customers will choose the deal which suits them best.
Don’t they always?


And there will be new choices in the mix: Berlin Brandenburg (they'll get it right eventually!); the new Istanbul. And established growing second-tier favourites: MUC, MAD, ZRH, CPH and the like. Plus hubs beyond Europe.Good, plenty of competition, pity it doesn’t always keep fares down. What you describe above already happens and will continue.

Don’t see BER, CPH, MAD, MUC, ZRH overtaking LHR, but would like to see MAN included in the list of up and coming airports.


By the time LHR opens 'Runway 3', my hunch is that the airport will already be far adrift of Europe's top tier. It will grow, but it will never again catch up. Our politicians have already seen to that.
As mentioned above, not completely convinced.


Meanwhile, MAN has a key role to play. Not as a LHR replacement, but as a big city-region destination in its own right.
As mentioned above, agreed.

[Fairdealfrank]

With regard to postings I would much rather read Sheds posting
Me too.........

[LAX_LHR]

3 more Easyjet routes to be announced soon by all accounts.

[Bagso]

Always good to see some actual evidence to support a view or proposition, its where some posters fall down .....

Heathrow - build and be damned, no rationale, no supportive thinking, kneejerk headline ! (FairDealFrank excluded).

That said it is one of the reasons I find part of the Davies submission so lame.

I cannot locate the original NATs article but here is a reference to it.

Four runway Heathrow would cut Gatwick by half | News | Wandsworth Council (http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/news/article/12247/four_runway_heathrow_would_cut_gatwick_by_half)

If we assume an average 5% growth in pax over say 10 years based on a fag packet calculation, that would equate to;

75m per year X 5% =3.75 m lost pax

Timeline to build min..10 years but assume it opens in 2025, highly optimistic that's 37.5m, if its such a magnet for trade , will it not be full immediately assuming all the traffic lost in the intervening years then comes back ?

If you build 4 runways which is the ideal solution you then effectively cut down total SE movements by 10% who takes the hit for that one ?

AND not much discussion by Davies about how the M4, M25 and Paddington Express will deal with all these extra pax !

Its an utter mess, therefore how do we try and claw back some of that lost traffic. Do you throw in the towel to AMS CDG FRA or place at least some emphasis on a place like Manchester which has excellent road/rail links, is central for the UK, is within 1 hour of some of the UKs largest Cities and already has double the direct links to the UK regions.

Manchester will not be force fed with traffic , its nonsense to suggest this would happen, BUT given these parameters what would the Germans do ?

As a footnote whether Manchester will invest in facilities to match the aspirations of a few of us on here is very doubtful, you have a major investor with a 35% holding whose stated interest is Stansted, everytime a new long haul route is announced Ex Man (and there has been a few since they bought in) it must irk enormously !

Pretty sure its NOT what they signed up for !

It remains to be seen whether they will stick or twist !

Us Northerners put away our cloth caps and whippets many years ago , with Devo Manc, NorthernPowerhouse etc there is a major opportunity and momentum to influence at a national level, ManAirport whatever your thinking needs to be leading that charge.

[Ian Brooks]

More growth in October
News / New routes and increased capacity boosts Manchester Airport THEBUSINESSDESK.COM (http://www.thebusinessdesk.com/northwest/news/692947-new-routes-and-increased-capacity-boosts-manchester-airport.html?news_section=4148)

MANCHESTER Airport is within touching distance of reaching its pre-recession record of 22 million passengers after another strong month of growth.

The airport said passenger numbers rose 7.1% in October to more than two million, taking the rolling annual total to 21.8 million.

During October there was a 12% year-on-year increase in passengers flying internationally, as numbers were boosted by new route launches and the introduction of increased capacity on existing long haul routes.

Ken O’Toole, chief commercial officer at MAG, owner of Manchester Airport, said: “It’s been another strong month of growth for Manchester Airport where we have further improved our credentials as being the international gateway for the North of England.

"Our ongoing ‘Fly Manchester’ campaign, has been hugely successful in communicating to passengers that there is no need to make the long trek to use congested and expensive airports in the south, when better options are available right on their doorstep.

"As we see more passengers come through our doors, Manchester Airport can play an even more effective role in helping deliver the ‘Northern Powerhouse' through providing new jobs and business opportunities to the region."

During October, Ryanair announced it would be extending its winter flying schedule from Manchester and a new service to Eindhoven in Holland, a previously unserved destination, launched.

Flybe also commenced a new year-round daily service to Amsterdam, marking the start of its winter flying programme, where it will operate 17 routes to and from Manchester offering a choice of up to 660 flights a week.

Saudia Airlines announced an additional service on its successful Manchester- Jeddah flights, increasing their offering from three to four flights per week on a Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday and Sunday.

[Bagso]

"the international gateway for the North of England "

"Manchester Airport can play an even more effective role in helping deliver the ‘Northern Powerhouse"

GOOD GOD.......... they live and breathe at last, terminology I never thought would see the day

I'm not one to do politics but given the DevoManc, Northern Powerhouse momentum maybe certain Politicians are using the rationale to suggest that us Northerners are sick to the back teeth of money being spend down South ?

I hasten to add its not an argument I necessarily agree with ......

But call me a cycnic and I know Davies came to Manchester Town hall 18 months back but there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Davies would not have been scheduled to head back up the M6 at this late hour if it had not been suggested by the great and the good.

Will he be foolish enough to totally ignore Manchester in the new political climate ?

What is the betting that Manchester "miraculously" emerges as a major player in the debate ?

I suspect some strong arm tactics have come into play !

"....all ahead back, get that man up North, and quick"

....on a wider note gaining political Capital from this could now dissuade a lot of Northern MPs from supporting RW3 if they see the mood music changing, if Manchester is the benefactor then so be it.

I suspect they thought that many of their constituents were ambivalent about their support of expansion down South,
Eg Graham Stringer, Louise Ellman, they thought wrong !

An awful lot of Northern MPs may change their position if they think they may be booted out !

Interesting also that in that PR piece "Gateway To The North " has re-emerged, tweeked to say long haul to protect the sensitivities of LIV and LBA of course.

what was the phrase "All in it together " ...by eck.

It's taken a while but just maybe with the assault by Charlie Cornish, the response that Andrew Cowan gave to the Lancashire Evening Post and re-introduction of a term often used by GT, Manchester has finally woken from its slumbers !

About time....bloody time !

Heart pills away.....

[Ian Brooks]

Bagso
Don`t move i`ll get somewhere to lie down lol!

[MANFOD]

Excellent result for October and good to see something is being done about T3 Border Control, who I hope will provide sufficient staff for the extra desks.

I always find it worth reading the debate involving Shed and FDF. Regarding the necessity of a mega hub, although I accept there is a good case, I've never been totally convinced it's an overwhelming one in terms of benefits to cities and regions outside London and the South East. For example, would a domestic feeder from, say, DTV to Heathrow really generate extra business or would it mainly cause some London only passengers to transfer from rail? For those travelling abroad from Teeside, would it dilute traffic on the limited KLM service to AMS, or pax who might otherwise use NCL or LBA or even MAN? A similar argument could be put for a LPL-LHR feeder. Nevertheless, while pax simply transferring at LHR may not spend much money in the UK, I can appreciate that increased numbers can make flights to new destinations and increased frequencies to existing cities viable with the potential for extra cargo as well as passengers.

It was something of a shock to find a dissenting voice to the claimed benefits of a hub in the London-centric Daily Telegraph. Jeremy Warner, Assistant Editor and Business & Economics commentator, broke ranks rather in an article the other day suggesting a third runway at LHR would never be built and that there was a better, less risky case for LGW. He ended his article:

"And who wants a “hub” anyway. Having once had the chance to look around Singapore’s vast container port, I’m not convinced by the economic arguments for “hub” transport models. They can, of course, be very useful to the big operators, who can mix and match transit cargo and passengers to maximum effect, but their impact on the surrounding economy is at best marginal. Nor should we take seriously threats from BA to move to Madrid if Heathrow isn’t expanded sufficiently to accommodate its own ambitions. Passengers will only take indirect flights if offered huge discounts to fill up the seats. BA would lose its British customer base if it moved.

A third runway at Heathrow is never going to be built. Let’s just get used to it"

I'm not saying his comments about hubs are necessarily correct but simply pointing out that there is an argument to be had and one which I hope Davies has not closed his mind to.

As far as MAN is concerned, I share Bagso's delight that it has now come out of its corner fighting. Hope the rumour of 3 more easyjet routes to be announced is right - it will keep the 9th based a/c busy.

[kieb92]

From another forum, new rumoured routes for EZY are:

Split
Santiago de Compostela
Paris CDG

easyJet CEO also wants EZY to be the 3rd largest airline at MAN over the next few years. Currently they are 7th so some more expansion expected.

Have been trying to find some figures, does anyone know who the top 5 airlines are at Manchester in terms of passenger numbers? Thanks

[anothertyke]

Bit surprised there isn't a thread for the Davies debate but anyway, very enjoyable contributions in the last page or two. Couple of comments :

Fairdeal Frank : My reading of it is that LHR is roughly 50/50 private funding (ie air traveller funded) and taxpayer funded. LHR is not a pure private scheme by any means ; LGW is mostly private.

FDF : I think France has done even worse by building an enormous airport which doesn't work. CDG plus Orly makes LHR plus LGW look quite good!

MANFOD :I think if anything Gatwick has gained traction over recent months and is still well in the frame. The balance between the value added by the concentrated hub model versus the distributed LHR + LGW +MAN model is one of the key issues on which the recommendation (as opposed to decision!) will turn.

The costs --- if it was just a matter of building a runway I agree the costs would be stonkingly enormous. But it is not just that : at Heathrow you have all the road remodelling works and tunnelling, at Gatwick there's a new terminal, these are complex multi-aspect projects. Yes there are good business cases for both of them but they don't come cheap, except relative to Boris's Island.

[eye2eye5]

Kieb

I find that a surprising comment by the easyJet CEO. My understanding is that they wish to be either No1 or No2 in each of their chosen markets. To aim to be No3 over a longish timescale appears to be significantly under shooting their published aspirations.

[Bagso]

Looks like I owe the Airport City people an apology......:uhoh:

Things appear to be moving swifter than I thought !

> News > Enterprise Zone growth on the cards in Autumn Statement - Place North West (http://www.placenorthwest.co.uk/news/archive/17217-enterprise-zone-growth-on-the-cards-in-autumn-statement.html)

"According to the report, the JV has occupier interest on 300,000 sq ft of office space and around 500 hotel bedrooms, with proposals and conversations at various stages of development with prospective occupiers. There is active occupier interest on 200,000 sq ft of space and 12 acres of land at Airport City South, including an 80,000 sq ft enquiry following the China Roadshow in June 2014. - See more at: http://www.placenorthwest.co.uk/news/archive/17217-enterprise-zone-growth-on-the-cards-in-autumn-statement.html#sthash.T4VqOaEt.dpuf "

In order to quantify, can anybody confirm how big the DHL facility is ?

[Betablockeruk]

Approx. 37,308 sq ft :}

200,000 sq ft!!! That must be industrial, storage or Google!

[SWBKCB]

I've never been totally convinced it's an overwhelming one in terms of benefits to cities and regions outside London and the South East. For example, would a domestic feeder from, say, DTV to Heathrow really generate extra business or would it mainly cause some London only passengers to transfer from rail? For those travelling abroad from Teesside, would it dilute traffic on the limited KLM service to AMS, or pax who might otherwise use NCL or LBA or even MAN?

The argument generally used for a London link is that not being able to fly from LHR is seen as a disadvantage to inward investment - basically, if you can't fly there investors think you don't exist...

[LN-KGL]

Bagso:
75m per year X 5% =3.75 m lost pax

Timeline to build min..10 years but assume it opens in 2025, highly optimistic that's 37.5m, if its such a magnet for trade , will it not be full immediately assuming all the traffic lost in the intervening years then comes back ?Bagso, have you heard about compund interest? Your calculation method only gives the correct answer for the first year. The second year this 5% growth is based on 78.75 million passengers of the previous year. With a continued constant 5% growth over 10 years and the start point being 75 million passengers, you'll end up with 122.2 million passengers 10 years later - not 112.5 million as you claimed.


If we bring this to MAN - the situation right now (September numbers since MAN has not published their traffic statistics for October yet) shows a 5.74% yearly growth. With this in mind and a startpoint of 21.66 million yearly passengers - MAN may end up with a yearly level of 37.9 million passengers in exactly 10 years from now and this is 75% more passengers than today.


A scenario with such a continued growth will be very uggly for MAN. The few minor complaints we see today will only be trivials compared with we may see in 10 years. A 60% growth in runway movements may be feasible (+60% provided 15 percentage points of the growth would be covered of larger aircraft/higher cabin loads), but the ground movement bottlenecks and the terminal capacity deficits will be very visible only within a few years. I presume it will take large part of a decade to complete the extensions to Terminal 2 alone, and still you will only have a one way lane in to and out from both T2 and the backside of pier C at T1. I have not mentioned replacement of remote stands to use during the construction period plus more remote stands needed because of the growth ... and more bussing, more Shell tankers...


I hope for MAN the growth goes down to more comfy +2%.

[Bagso]

LN KGL

I have indeed heard of compound interest.

The figure quoted was, as I did actually indicate a "basic fag packet calculation" for illustration purposes only, in that regard it served the purpose.

It was not meant to be used for a detailed forensic evaluation as so much can happen over a 10 year timeline, it was however possibly the minimum that one might expect !

BUT adding another 10m pax serves only to "compound" the point I was attempting to make. Albeit somewhat unsuccessfully it seems.

[MANFOD]

LN-KGL, I'm not sure what extensions to T2 MAN, or you, have in mind, but it shouldn't take a decade, surely! It depends how advanced detailed plans are, but even if the airport has remained very quiet on the subject I expect much work has been done behind the scenes. Not sure how long is involved in getting plans approved, putting out to tender, appointing contractors etc. but I would hope to see something well before then even if extra facilities are opened in stages.

Nevertheless, your final comment about 2% growth is why I previously suggested, slightly tongue in cheek, that MAN may prefer more modest manageable growth given the present infrastructure constraints. I would hope however that they are more ambitious than that and will now expedite much needed development. Whether it was because of the recession and/or MAN has been genuinely surprised at the level of increased activity in the last 2 or 3 years, or whether STN became a distraction for MAG, I've no idea; but I can understand the perception by some that the airport is behind in the game as far as infrastructure is concerned and needs to start running to catch up.

[Paul_from_Dublin]

Fairdealfrank said...

"Maybe, maybe not. Who knows what will happen in 20 years?"

followed by

"We know two things: ... Forget about the sclerotic eurozone (which contains AMS, CDG, FRA) it’s dying from deflation and high unemployment and will probably implode in the medium term)..."

It's enough to frighten one into moving to England and converting one's savings to Sterling to escape the meltdown. How long do you reckon we have left in the Eurozone Frank? :E

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

fairdealfrank … Thankyou for your response. My reply to you won't be terribly controversial, as I am in agreement with about 90% of what you wrote. Just afew points merit clarification, however.

We can’t assume that LHR will have sunk to sixth place any more than we can assume it will be in first.

As the saying goes: forecasting is notoriously difficult, especially when it concerns the future. All we can offer is our best educated guess, as indeed must the infrastucture planners. In this case, I have based my speculation upon the fact that LHR's passenger growth is limited to what can be delivered by the continuing trend towards using larger aircraft types. LHR's rivals can in many cases accept a considerable increase in ATM's from an already high base. Some of these airports are already starting to encourage use by no-frills carriers such as EZY/RYR/NAX/WZZ which offer the potential to significantly grow their throughput going forward. LHR cannot provide similar access. Thus I see less-constrained competitors pulling well ahead based upon a twenty year timeframe. The driver here is not underlying potential demand, but LHR's physical inability to service it. Of course, we are always prone to experience severe turbulence in the wider global economy and "black swan" events always have the potential to derail even the best forecasts regardless.

One has to follow the money, if Heathrow’s long term future is so dire, it’s unlikely that billions of private money would be going into infrastructure improvements on the airport. Two new terminals are the current examples.

I do not consider LHR's future 'dire'. Quite the contrary. But I do doubt the site's ability to accommodate significant growth above the commendably high plateau already achieved. From my perspective, the investment you cite is required to service LHR's existing throughput of around 72.5 million pax per annum. The original T1/T2/T3 arrangement in particular was well past its use-by date. Replacement was essential. The new projects sustain the viability of LHR's current operation and on that basis represent money well spent. 72.5+ million ppa is a world-class performance worth protecting.

In 20 years time aircraft will be even cleaner and quieter than today.

Entirely agree. It is profoundly regrettable that the industry is doing such a poor job of getting the message out there that today's airliners have already progressed so much. Some BANANA's are wilfully acting as if we're still in an era of VC10's and Tridents. Add to your statement the fact that aircraft will be SAFER too.

LHR is getting into the top 10 best airports these days.

I attach no credence to surveys of this nature, and I say that even as MAN has just won one such quality award. The respondent sample is simply too diverse to offer any worthwhile insights. How many of those voting have experienced even 10% of the airports under consideration? Even then, there are too many variables. A customer using LHR T5 will enjoy a wholly different experience than his T3 counterpart. Those who transfer between terminals will have a very different impression again.

Sometimes one's impression of an airport comes right down to luck on the day. Take my most recent experience via MAN T3: significant delay outbound due to refuelling issues at the allocated stand. And the homeward flight: through the entire arrivals process and outside within 10 minutes … flawless. So how might I vote in a quality survey? Multiply this across the spectrum of conditions which customers experience transiting any major airport and the whole voting process becomes a lottery.

These survey-based award ceremonies provide a nice social evening out for the suits, but I would not refer to them as any reliable guide to the true airport experience.

Looking at LHR specifically, I agree that T5 is a quality product. I have yet to experience 'new' T2. For me, LHR's challenges concern transfers (particularly those requiring a switch of terminals), and the slow and surly duplicated security checks endured by passengers who have just alighted from an already security-screened flight. Beyond the terminal infrastructure, the high incidence of domestic flight cancellations due to the fully-subscribed runways remains a major issue.

but would like to see MAN included in the list of up and coming airports.

I too hope to see MAN enjoy a thriving future. However, my list in this case concerned airports which would be leading choices as a hub interchange. Whilst MAN has a limited role to play in this respect (as demonstrated by FlyBe and envisioned by Thomas Cook Airlines), MAN is simply too peripheral from a geographical perspective to serve as a major hub. It is simply too far from the centre of Europe. MAN is also hampered as a hub by not having a single dominant home-based carrier. Future growth at MAN will depend overwhelmingly on servicing the needs of passengers originating and terminating their journeys within its own catchment area. MAN does, of course, benefit from having particularly good ground transport access especially by rail.

By the way, I learn alot from these civilised exchanges of views and ideas as well. IMO, more reasoned and researched discussion is far preferable to the soundbites, backbiting and silly name-calling sometimes seen elsewhere. I particularly cringe when I read posters who denounce others for daring to discuss "bad news". I admire the moderators for doing a very tough job, often called upon to regulate discussion topics which are of zero interest to them personally. But these threads do positively interest their intended core audience. I hope they note the generally courteous interaction on the MAN thread. There is a core of constructive contributors drawing in healthy discussion on here. Hopefully we Manchester AA&R regulars are a net positive in driving site traffic volume which the PPRuNe advertisers will appreciate.

PS. How do you get your quote grabs to appear inside those neat blue boxes? Dumb question, I know. Give me a plane over a computer anyday.

[Ringwayman]

It depends how advanced detailed plans are, but even if the airport has remained very quiet on the subject I expect much work has been done behind the scenes. Not sure how long is involved in getting plans approved

They've already got planning permission - what's in use is approximately half of what they can build. Think the permission also included a satellite pier as well.

PS. How do you get your quote grabs to appear inside those neat blue boxes?

when replying, click the quote icon (between the "picture" and "#") then copy and paste what you want between the [quote]s

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

Take 3:

when replying, click the quote icon (between the "picture" and "#") then copy and paste

Fingers crossed. Yup, finally worked. Third time lucky. Thanks, Rinwayman.

[Shed-on-a-Pole]

A brief revisit to one of our earlier hot topics. The latest marketing e.blast from MAG / Manchester Airport specifically features: the new EasyJet routes already announced to OPO, MRS & PSA; the new FlyBe BOH service; Cathay's imminent new MAN-HKG service; Ryanair's new route to SNN.

Full marks. Someone is taking note of our suggestions. You been on the phone, Bagso?

[QUOTE][Us Northerners put away our cloth caps and whippets many years ago/QUOTE]

Nope. Needed two cloth caps this morning. The deluge was so dire that Psycho and Fang (the whippets) demanded one each. There was an AN124 in that murk somewhere.

Edit: This blue box thingy is very temperamental, isn't it?

[DooblerChina]

Morning all, I noticed a couple of AN 124's today which my 3 year old would love to see, does anyone have any idea what time they are scheduled to depart?

Thanks

[Ian Brooks]

1st one 12.00 Sunday 2nd 12.00 Monday both to EMA so should be lively
on take off

Ian

[Fairdealfrank]

Always good to see some actual evidence to support a view or proposition, its where some posters fall down .....

Heathrow - build and be damned, no rationale, no supportive thinking, kneejerk headline ! (FairDealFrank excluded).

That said it is one of the reasons I find part of the Davies submission so lame.

I cannot locate the original NATs article but here is a reference to it.

Four runway Heathrow would cut Gatwick by half | News | Wandsworth Council (http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/news/article/12247/four_runway_heathrow_would_cut_gatwick_by_half)


Would it really? To an extent maybe, but it isn’t that simple.

The "waiting room" function of LGW would go as LHR slots become available, and BA long haul and VS could also be expected to move there. That frees up slots for U2 and others, and that could impact on LTN and STN as carriers shift from those airports to LGW.

It could mean that LGW doesn’t need another rwy in the short term.



Its an utter mess, therefore how do we try and claw back some of that lost traffic. Do you throw in the towel to AMS CDG FRA or place at least some emphasis on a place like Manchester which has excellent road/rail links, is central for the UK, is within 1 hour of some of the UKs largest Cities and already has double the direct links to the UK regions.

Manchester will not be force fed with traffic , its nonsense to suggest this would happen, BUT given these parameters what would the Germans do ?


The two issues are unrelated, one is insufficient capacity at LHR driving premium business and transfer pax to AMS, CDG, FRA, the other is about growing MAN with more available destinations for which it needs sufficient premium business that makes these new destinations viable.


But call me a cycnic and I know Davies came to Manchester Town hall 18 months back but there is absolutely no doubt in my mind that Davies would not have been scheduled to head back up the M6 at this late hour if it had not been suggested by the great and the good.


In fairness to Davies, he probably didn’t spend much time in Manchester (or Birmingham, Glasgow, etc.) because the Commission’s remit is to examine a lack of hub capacity at the country’s hub.


....on a wider note gaining political Capital from this could now dissuade a lot of Northern MPs from supporting RW3 if they see the mood music changing, if Manchester is the benefactor then so be it.

I suspect they thought that many of their constituents were ambivalent about their support of expansion down South,
Eg Graham Stringer, Louise Ellman, they thought wrong !


Many northern MPs (and others) are supportive of LHR expansion because they want their areas to have reasonable links to LHR, to help with inward investment and the export drive and to grow their local area economies. Only 7 UK cities have this at present, the thinner routes are pushed out.


An awful lot of Northern MPs may change their position if they think they may be booted out !


No, airport/aviation policy is not an issue that gets MPs elected or defeated. Even the expenses scandal wasn't sufficient to motivate electors to get rid of their MPs (with perhaps a handful of exceptions).


I always find it worth reading the debate involving Shed and FDF. Regarding the necessity of a mega hub, although I accept there is a good case, I've never been totally convinced it's an overwhelming one in terms of benefits to cities and regions outside London and the South East. For example, would a domestic feeder from, say, DTV to Heathrow really generate extra business or would it mainly cause some London only passengers to transfer from rail?


MME-LHR on BD and MME-AMS on KL co-existed for many years. When LH wholly owned BD, many slots were "asset-stripped" from BD to other other carriers in the LH group because of the lack of available slots to use on thicker routes. The effect on MME was catastrophic.


For those travelling abroad from Teeside, would it dilute traffic on the limited KLM service to AMS, or pax who might otherwise use NCL or LBA or even MAN? A similar argument could be put for a LPL-LHR feeder.


Not convinced by this argument, its lack of slots, not lack of pax that closed the thin routes to/from LHR.


Nevertheless, while pax simply transferring at LHR may not spend much money in the UK, I can appreciate that increased numbers can make flights to new destinations and increased frequencies to existing cities viable with the potential for extra cargo as well as passengers.


This is an important point, new long haul routes need feeder services.


Fairdeal Frank : My reading of it is that LHR is roughly 50/50 private funding (ie air traveller funded) and taxpayer funded. LHR is not a pure private scheme by any means ; LGW is mostly private.


AFAIK, the only part publicly funded would be the M25 tunnels, etc..


FDF : I think France has done even worse by building an enormous airport which doesn't work. CDG plus Orly makes LHR plus LGW look quite good!


Nothing wrong with ORY, CDG is a dump.



Fairdealfrank said...

"Maybe, maybe not. Who knows what will happen in 20 years?"

followed by

"We know two things: ... Forget about the sclerotic eurozone (which contains AMS, CDG, FRA) it’s dying from deflation and high unemployment and will probably implode in the medium term)..."

It's enough to frighten one into moving to England and converting one's savings to Sterling to escape the meltdown. How long do you reckon we have left in the Eurozone Frank?


Tell me it is not true. Do you honestly think that 18 vastly different economies, with every country breaking the rules (“the Maastricht criteria”) starting with France and Germany in 1995, and a common currency created for political rather than economic reasons is sustainable in the medium/long term?

As for Ireland, it’s difficult to see why it is a member anyway. Would have made more sense for it to stay out along with Denmark, Sweden and the UK. Eurozone membership eventually killed off the Celtic Tiger.

LHR's rivals can in many cases accept a considerable increase in ATM's from an already high base. Some of these airports are already starting to encourage use by no-frills carriers such as EZY/RYR/NAX/WZZ which offer the potential to significantly grow their throughput going forward. LHR cannot provide similar access.

This is one of the arguments for expansion. FR has made it clear that it won’t be operating from LHR, CDG, FRA. Wouldn’t expect the no frills carriers that follow the FR model to be heading to the big European airports either.


Thus I see less-constrained competitors pulling well ahead based upon a twenty year timeframe. The driver here is not underlying potential demand, but LHR's physical inability to service it. Of course, we are always prone to experience severe turbulence in the wider global economy and "black swan" events always have the potential to derail even the best forecasts regardless.


LHR has the advantage that premium business want to use it. Who knows why, but it’s always been the case, and still is even with the inconvenience of the delays and aggravation caused by lack of capacity.


I too hope to see MAN enjoy a thriving future. However, my list in this case concerned airports which would be leading choices as a hub interchange. Whilst MAN has a limited role to play in this respect (as demonstrated by FlyBe and envisioned by Thomas Cook Airlines), MAN is simply too peripheral from a geographical perspective to serve as a major hub. It is simply too far from the centre of Europe. MAN is also hampered as a hub by not having a single dominant home-based carrier. Future growth at MAN will depend overwhelmingly on servicing the needs of passengers originating and terminating their journeys within its own catchment area. MAN does, of course, benefit from having particularly good ground transport access especially by rail.


Up to a point MAN is not as central, in European geographical terms, as MUC or ZRH for example, but then again it is as peripheral as CPH, DUB, FCO or MAD. Yes, these are capital cities and hubs for their national carriers.

Manchester’s stength is that where a country can support routes to 2 UK cities, it will generally be the second route after London. There are exceptions of course, e.g. in the case of India, it’s Birmingham). The rail access at Ringway is truly impressive.


By the way, I learn alot from these civilised exchanges of views and ideas as well. IMO, more reasoned and researched discussion is far preferable to the soundbites, backbiting and silly name-calling sometimes seen elsewhere. I particularly cringe when I read posters who denounce others for daring to discuss "bad news". I admire the moderators for doing a very tough job, often called upon to regulate discussion topics which are of zero interest to them personally. But these threads do positively interest their intended core audience. I hope they note the generally courteous interaction on the MAN thread. There is a core of constructive contributors drawing in healthy discussion on here. Hopefully we Manchester AA&R regulars are a net positive in driving site traffic volume which the PPRuNe advertisers will appreciate.


Agreed, 100%


PS. How do you get your quote grabs to appear inside those neat blue boxes? Dumb question, I know. Give me a plane over a computer anyday.


(1) copy and paste the text in "the reply to thread" window.

(2) highlight the text, and hit the icon that looks like a speech bubble from the row above. It's the third from the right, left of the hash. Put your mouse over it and the message "wrap tags around the selected text".

(3) the text will now appear with “[QUOTE]” in front of it, and “” at the end of it. When read, the text should be in the box.

[Paul_from_Dublin]

Tell me it is not true. Do you honestly think that 18 vastly different economies...etcSorry Frank, that's a huge debate not appropriate for this thread. I was just poking a little fun at the way the word "euro" has become so toxic in England that it seems (from over here anyway) that the idea of "euro = root of all evil" appears to have been accepted as a self evident truth. Sometimes the onesidedness on display makes you all sound, on this topic, a bit like North Korea railing against the evils of the West.

Anyway, apologies for barging into this very interesting discussion. :ok:

[anothertyke]

Looking at the AC report on Heathrow North-West it looks like the surface access costs are £5.7bn out of £24bn so around a quarter is assumed to be taxpayer funded in the AC analysis (though it's left open what the contribution from the airport and therefore air travellers to the surface access costs might actually be). That's the basis on which they come up with their £8-9 increase in airport charges per pax.

[Ian Brooks]

Paul you are always welcome.

Ian

[Paul_from_Dublin]

Thanks Ian

Paul

[PPRuNe Pop]

'Essays' rubbish and drivel are henceforth banned. As are irrelevances and figments of some people's imagination. This thread should be about MANCHESTER, not Birmingham, Liverpool, Gatwick or Heathrow or any others.

It is not a place to write missives or diatribes - it is for people who live in the Manchester area and can add to the topic of the thread.

I will in future use the delete tool more often and the banning tool too. My PM bin is getting a lot of complaints about some who are using the threads for their own ends. That will certainly stop.

Please re-read the PPRuNe rules they are there to be accepted. If you don't like them just leave.

So, this thread is now closed until I decide to open it. The new title will then be MANCHESTER - 1 which gives it a better feel. Remember stick to the topic, nothing else. If you have nothing useful to say don't make it up or try to be clever by rubbishing someone who can write and debate properly.

I will let you know on THIS thread when a new one can be opened. Anyone who is first to see it will be the lucky one.

Also remember that PPRuNe here to enjoy - if you cannot do that please go somewhere else.